Laltitude LLC v. Dreambuilder Toy LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LALTITUDE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:22-cv-2911
v. 	Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
DREAMBUILDER TOY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
The matter before the Court is Defendant Dreambuilder Toy, LLC’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 44.) Dreambuilder asks the Court to award it $58,005.00 in
attorneys’ fees and $1,145.56 in costs. (Id.) Plaintiff Laltitude, LLC filed an opposition (ECF No.
47) and Dreambuilder filed a reply (ECF No. 48). For the reasons stated below, the Court
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Dreambuilder’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
(ECF No 44.)
BACKGROUND
In July 2022, Laltitude sued Dreambuilder alleging that Dreambuilder infringed its
patents for magnetic bricks used as building tiles in toy sets. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–2.) The parties
engaged in settlement negotiations and reached a settlement in June 2023. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.)
Dreambuilder signed a written Settlement Agreement, but Laltitude, wanting to continue
discussions, did not. (ECF No. 26-1, PageID 151; ECF No. 27, PageID 206.) The Settlement
Agreement required the parties to file a joint motion to the Court for a permanent injunction.
(ECF No. 26-3, PageID 167.) Laltitude refused to file the motion, asserting that it did not agree
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 26-1, PageID 156.) In late December 2023,
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Dreambuilder filed a motion for leave to file the Settlement Agreement under seal, in which it
notified Laltitude and the Court that it intended to file a Motion to Enforce the Settlement
Agreement. (ECF No. 24, PageID 143.)
In March 2024, Laltitude filed another lawsuit against Dreambuilder—in California state
court—seeking declaratory judgment regarding the validity and enforceability of the Settlement
Agreement. (ECF No. 26-1, PageID 151; ECF No. 26-4, PageID 199.)
In May 2024, Dreambuilder filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for
Sanctions in this Court. (ECF No. 26.) In addition to asking the Court to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, Dreambuilder requested sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees for litigation costs it
incurred due to Laltitude’s refusal to comply with the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 26-1,
PageID 157–58.)
In November 2024, the California court dismissed the California case by granting
Dreambuilder’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 48, PageID 390.) After its loss in California,
Laltitude signed the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 39, PageID 317.) It also filed a Motion to
Dismiss the instant case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 37), which
Dreambuilder opposed (ECF No. 38).
In March 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Dreambuilder’s Motion
to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions (ECF No. 26) and denying Laltitude’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37). (March 2025 Order, ECF No. 40.) The Court found that an
enforceable Settlement Agreement was created on June 21, 2023, and that Laltitude breached the
agreement by attempting to disavow it. (March 2025 Order, PageID 332.) It denied Laltitude’s
motion to dismiss because granting it would have allowed Laltitude to defeat Dreambuilder’s
request for attorneys’ fees. (Id. PageID 324.) Finally, it concluded that Dreambuilder is entitled
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 2 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
to compensatory damages in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs “incurred as a direct result of
Laltitude’s breach of the Settlement Agreement” and ordered Dreambuilder to file a motion for
attorneys’ fees. (Id. PageID 332–33.) Subsequently, Dreambuilder filed the instant Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 44) with an accompanying Memorandum in Support. (Mot.,
ECF No. 44-1.)
ANALYSIS
Dreambuilder requests $58,005.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,145.56 in costs, for a total of
$59,150.56. (Mot., PageID 341.) This amount covers Dreambuilder’s fees and costs incurred in
resolving the instant case and the California case, starting on the date Laltitude began to disavow
the Settlement Agreement. (Id. PageID 342.) Laltitude’s response in opposition can be distilled
into two possible arguments: (1) Dreambuilder’s calculation is unreasonable because it exceeds
the scope of the Court’s March 2025 Order and (2) Dreambuilder did not mitigate its damages.
(Opp., ECF No. 47, PageID 378–85.) Additionally, Laltitude attempts to once again argue the
enforceability of the Settlement Agreement (Id. PageID 373–74), which the Court addresses first.
I. 	Enforceability of the Settlement Agreement
Laltitude attempts to relitigate the issue of enforceability of the Settlement Agreement. It
argues that one of Dreambuilder’s attorney’s time entries, which Dreambuilder submitted for
calculating attorneys’ fees, proves that the settlement negotiations were still ongoing after June
21, 2023. (Opp., PageID 373–74.) It asserts that the Court can vacate its March 2025 Order
because of this “newly discovered evidence” that it alleges Dreambuilder intentionally withheld.
(Id.)
The time entry, dated July 7, 2023, states:
Reviewed 	proposed 	settlement 	agreement 	changes 	and 	opposing 	counsel
correspondence 	regarding 	the 	same. 	Corresponded 	with 	K. 	Liu 	regarding
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 3 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
developments and recommendation. Drafted email to opposing counsel declining
to consider updated settlement proposal and intent to rely on agreed terms.
(ECF No. 44-3. PageID 350.) The last sentence in the time entry contradicts Laltitude’s assertion
that the parties were still negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Instead, it fits
squarely within the Court’s conclusion that an enforceable agreement was finalized on June 21,
2023. Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to reconsider the issue of the Settlement
Agreement’s validity and enforceability.
II. 	Laltitude’s Arguments in Opposition of Attorneys’ Fees
Laltitude makes a number of arguments against attorneys’ fees that can be reduced to two
main points. First, that Dreambuilder’s inclusion of the California case exceeds the scope of the
Court’s March 2025 Order. (Opp., PageID 378, 380–83, 384–85.) Second, it argues that
Dreambuilder did not mitigate its damages. (Id. PageID 379–80.) The Court addresses these
arguments before turning to a lodestar analysis of Dreambuilder’s fees calculation.
A. Scope of the Court’s Order
Laltitude argues that fees incurred in the California case are outside the scope of the
March 2025 Order. (Opp., PageID 378, 380–83, 384–85.) It asserts that any time entries related
to the California matter should be excluded from the award. (Id., PageID 383.) Dreambuilder
responds that the California case is a direct result of Laltitude’s breach of the Settlement
Agreement and the two cases are “inextricably intertwined,” allowing it to recover fees in both
cases. (ECF No. 48, PageID 389.)
The Court’s March 2025 Order stated that there was “no genuine issue of material fact
that a settlement agreement was reached and Laltitude’s efforts to disclaim that agreement
caused Dreambuilder to incur litigation costs that were otherwise unnecessary.” (March 2025
Order, ECF No. 40, PageID 332.) It concluded that Dreambuilder is entitled to its attorneys’ fees
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 4 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
and costs “incurred as a direct result of Laltitude’s breach of the Settlement Agreement.” (Id.)
A party may recover its attorneys’ fees incurred in a related case if the work product is
utilized in both cases and the issues in both cases are “inextricably linked.” Bender v. Newell
Window Furnishings, Inc., 560 F. App’x 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Gulfstream III
Assocs., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414, 420 (3d Cir. 1993)). In Bender, an
employer brought a preemptive lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment to avoid litigation with its
retirees in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) matter. Id. at 470–71. That
case was dismissed for improper forum shopping. Id. at 471. The retirees then brought their
ERISA claim in the proper forum, where they prevailed and were awarded their attorney’s fees
in both lawsuits. Id. at 471–73. The Sixth Circuit upheld the award explaining that the two cases
had identical issues and that it would be unjust to require the retirees to bear the costs of
defending themselves in the related case because the related case was brought “in an improper
forum to gain an advantage” against them and they had to resolve the first case in order to
proceed with their ERISA claim. Id. See also Keyes Law Firm LLC v. Napoli, 120 F.4th 139,
143–44 (4th Cir. 2024) (upholding sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees where a party filed
two state court actions in an attempt to impede pending litigation in federal court).
Here, like in Bender, the issues in the two cases are not just related or inextricably linked,
they are identical. Laltitude asked the California court to determine the enforceability of the
Settlement Agreement, which was ultimately decided by this Court. Further, it is apparent that
Laltitude initiated the California case to gain an advantage in the instant case. Laltitude knew
that Dreambuilder was going to ask this Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement, because of
Dreambuilder’s filing saying so, and attempted to impede the request by asking a different court
to find the Settlement Agreement unenforceable. (ECF No. 26-4, PageID 198–99).
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 5 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Laltitude has asserted that it had a right to dispute the validity of the Settlement
Agreement in another forum because the Settlement Agreement did not contain a governing-law
provision. (ECF No. 39, PageID 316.) Even so, Dreambuilder incurred costs in defending itself
in the California case that it should not have to bear. Especially because the issue of the
enforceability of the Settlement Agreement could have, and ultimately was, resolved by this
Court. This lawsuit was ongoing when Laltitude filed the state court action.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Dreambuilder is entitled to its attorneys’ fees and
costs in enforcing the Settlement Agreement incurred in this Court and the California state court.
B. Mitigation of Damages
Laltitude argues that Dreambuilder had a duty to mitigate its damages under Ohio breach-
of-contract law. (Opp., PageID 377.) It asserts that Dreambuilder failed to mitigate when it
“declined to participate in a mediation, opting instead for the initiation of additional litigation.”
(Id. PageID 379–80.)
Other than conclusory assertions, Laltitude does not proffer any facts or case law to
support its argument that engaging in mediation is a form of damages mitigation. To the Court’s
knowledge, there is no duty on a party in a lawsuit to participate in alternative dispute resolution
to mitigate its attorneys’ fees. In certain situations, however, courts have considered whether
failure to avoid unnecessary litigation should result in a reduction of awarded attorneys’ fees. See
Danvers v. Danvers, 959 F.2d 601, 605–06 (6th Cir. 1992) (finding that a party should not
receive full attorneys’ fees when attorney proceeded with discovery instead of filing a motion to
dismiss meritless claims); United States ex rel. Jacobs v. Lambda Research, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-
536, 2015 WL 11120335, at *3–5 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2015) (Bowman, J.) (questioning whether
a duty to mitigate attorneys’ fees exists and concluding that a party was entitled to full attorneys’
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 6 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
fees because it “tried valiantly to quickly resolve [the] litigation” and it was the non-movant’s
conduct that prolonged litigation).
There is no evidence that Dreambuilder engaged in unnecessary litigation in resolving its
dispute with Laltitude. The record reflects that the Parties were scheduled to participate in
mediation in June 2023, but it was cancelled because they reached a Settlement Agreement.
(March 2025 Order, PageID 321; ECF No. 21.) No further mediation was ever contemplated by
the Parties. Additionally, there was no reason for Dreambuilder, who has always maintained that
a valid Settlement Agreement was created on June 21, 2023, to mediate an issue that it believed
to be settled. Laltitude prolonged the dispute by disavowing the Settlement Agreement and
initiating a second lawsuit in California, and Dreambuilder took steps to resolve the dispute
efficiently by asking this Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement and obtaining dismissal in
the California case.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Dreambuilder did not fail to mitigate its attorneys’ fees.
III. 	Calculation Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Turning to the attorneys’ fees calculation, the Court calculates an award of attorneys’ fees
by using the lodestar amount, which is “the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation [multiplied] by a reasonable hourly rate.” Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., 515 F.3d
531, 551 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Because of
its objectivity, “there is a ‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar figure is reasonable.” Perdue v.
Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 554 (2010).
The party seeking attorneys’ fees has the initial burden to “submit evidence of the hours
worked and the rates sought.” Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 702
(6th Cir. 2016). The documentation offered in support must be “of sufficient detail and probative
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 7 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were
actually and reasonably expended in the prosecution of the litigation.” Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 553
(quoting United Slate, Local 307 v. G & M Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 502 n.2
(6th Cir. 1984)).
Dreambuilder requests attorneys’ fees for the following hours at the following rates:
Last Name 	Year Admitted 	Hourly Rate 	Hours Billed 	Total
Schonauer 	2010 	$376.89 	70.8 	$26,684.00
Rodman 	2001 	$701.26 	17.9 	$12,552.50
Wymore 	1986 	$691.08 	16.7 	$11,541.00
Illig 	N/A 	$245 	15.7 	$3,846.50
Smith 	2020 	$330 	9.9 	$3,267
Scharf 	N/A 	$360 	0.2 	$72
Miller 	N/A 	$210 	0.2 	$42
Total 	140 	$58,005.00
(Schonauer Aff., ECF No. 44-2, PageID 347.) In support of its request, Dreambuilder submitted
invoices that contain detailed time entries for the hours and rates billed by its attorneys and
paralegals. (ECF No. 44-3, PageID 350–69.) It also submitted a declaration from attorney
Matthew J. Schonauer, who was responsible for issuing the invoices to Dreambuilder.
(Schonauer Aff., PageID 346.) With this calculation, the Court proceeds to a lodestar analysis of
Dreambuilder’s attorneys’ hourly rates and hours billed.
A. Hourly Rate
A reasonable hourly rate is determined based on the “prevailing market rate in the
relevant community.” Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000)
(citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)).
In support of its attorneys’ rates, Dreambuilder cites to the American Intellectual
Property Law Association’s (“AIPLA”) Report of the Economic Survey, which provides figures
for attorneys’ billing rates in intellectual property disputes. (Schonauer, Aff., PageID 348–49.)
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 8 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
Generally, this Court relies on the Ohio State Bar Association’s Survey on Economics of Law
Practice to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ hourly rates. See Equity Res., Inc. v. T2
Fin., LLC, No. 2:21-cv-5922, 2025 WL 699462, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2025). But given the
multijurisdictional nature of the parties’ dispute, and the specialized nature of intellectual
property law, the Court finds it appropriate to consider the AIPLA’s figures for intellectual
property attorneys. See Swapalease, Inc. v. Sublease Exchange.com, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-45, 2009
WL 1119591, at *4–5 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (Beckwith, J.) (relying on AIPLA report); Eagle
Crusher Co., Inc. v. U.S. Equip. Sales & Rentals, No. 2:25-cv-42, 2025 WL 2267729, at *5 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 8, 2025) (Morrison, J.) (relying on both the AIPLA report and the Ohio State Bar
Association’s survey).
Laltitude protests only the hourly rates of the attorneys who billed in the California case.
(Opp., PageID 382.) As an initial matter, the Court notes that it was Laltitude that chose the
forum when it initiated the parallel case in California, a state generally known for its high
litigation costs. Dreambuilder could not defend itself in California without an attorney licensed
to practice in California, who in this case was Ms. Wymore. (Schonauer, Aff., PageID 348.) See
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 (“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is
an active licensee of the State Bar.”).
Proceeding to the billing-rate analysis, the Court finds that all Dreambuilder’s legal
professionals’ fees are reasonable except for one. According to the AIPLA, the average hourly
rates for intellectual property attorneys are the following:
• 	10–14 years of experience - $527 per hour
• 	15–24 years of experience - $545 per hour
• 	25–34 years of experience - $610 per hour
• 	35+ years of experience - $694 per hour
2023 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey, page I-34. Thus, Mr. Schonauer’s and Ms.
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 9 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
Wymore’s rates are reasonable. Ms. Rodman’s hourly rate exceeds the AIPLA average for an
attorney with her years of experience. Ms. Rodman had 23–24 years of experience while
working on this matter. Because she is on the cusp of two ranges, the Court reduces Ms.
Rodman’s rate to a rate of $575 per hour. See Eagle Crusher Co., 2025 WL 2267729 at *5
(finding a rate of $600 per hour to be an appropriate rate for an intellectual property attorney
with about 30 years of experience).
Laltitude does not challenge the paralegals’ hourly rates. Nevertheless, the Court finds
them to be reasonable. See Epic Fiber Underground Constr., LLC v. Utils. Servs. Radius, LLC,
No. 1:24-CV-720, 2025 WL 2842421, at *6 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2025) (Litkovitz, M.J.)
(concluding that a paralegal billing rate of $250 per hour is reasonable).
Given the reduction to Ms. Rodman’s hourly rate, the attorneys’ fees award is modified
as follows:
Name 	Year Admitted 	Hourly Rate 	Hours Billed 	Total
Schonauer 	2010 	$376.89 	70.8 	$26,684.00
Rodman 	2001 	$701.26
$575
17.9 	$12,552.50
$10,292.50
Wymore 	1986 	$691.08 	16.7 	$11,541.00
Illig 	N/A 	$245 	15.7 	$3,846.50
Smith 	2020 	$330 	9.9 	$3,267
Scharf 	N/A 	$360 	0.2 	$72
Miller 	N/A 	$210 	0.2 	$42
Total 	140 	$58,005.00
$55,745
B. Hours Billed
In reviewing counsel’s hours billed in a motion for attorneys’ fees, the district court’s
goal “is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838
(2011). The standard for determining whether the hours expended are reasonable is “whether a
reasonable attorney would have believed the work to be reasonably expended in pursuit of
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 10 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

11
success at the point in time when the work was performed.” Woolridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp.,
898 F.2d 1169, 1177 (6th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by, Buckhannon Bd. & Care
Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
Dreambuilder’s legal counsel billed 140 hours after Laltitude disavowed the Settlement
Agreement. (Schonauer Aff., PageID 347.) This includes time for communicating with Laltitude
about the Settlement Agreement, drafting multiple briefs seeking enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement, and obtaining dismissal of the California case. (ECF No. 44-3, PageID 350–69.)
Upon review of the time entries submitted by Dreambuilder’s counsel, the Court finds 140 hours
reasonable to resolve the instant litigation and obtain dismissal in the California case. The Court
finds no evidence of duplicative, wasteful, or excessive billing in Dreambuilder’s legal
professionals’ time entries.
C. Costs
Dreambuilder requests $1,145.56 in costs to cover $28.10 in document access costs,
$13.77 in research costs, and $1,103.69 in filing costs in the California case. (Mot., PageID 344.)
Laltitude opposes the inclusion of costs from the California case. (Opp., PageID 384–85.) As
discussed above, Dreambuilder is entitled to its fees and costs incurred in defending itself in the
California case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the requested costs.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this Opinion and Order, the Court GRANTS in part (ECF No.
44) Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Court AWARDS Dreambuilder
$55,745 in attorneys’ fees and $1,145.56 in costs, for a total of $56,890.56. The Court notes that
this holding is limited to the specific facts of this case, which involve litigation in California and
intellectual property issues.
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 11 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This case remains closed.
1/8/2026 	s/Edmund A. sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:22-cv-02911-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 52 Filed: 01/08/26 Page: 12 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>